Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3

Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 04:18:15 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Why methodological naturalism?"

    Jim has challenged,

    << Paul Seely writes
     It is not just Day 4 that does not fit. See Bible
     Paul, I have read that. And you make some good points (I especially like
     the one about the fruit trees). And I guess that you just got yourself some
     publicity. But please step up to the plate, and stop hiding behind a
     previous paper. What's your biggest beef with the reconciliation between
     Genesis One and Science? Bring it on. Let's get it out in the open where
     everyone can look at it. If you dare. -Jim

    Howard's books and my articles (the one above and others referenced in it)
    show why concordism does not work. If you really want to know why it does not
    work, the answers are there in more detail than can be offered in an email
    discussion. If you want to bring up a particular issue you do not think has
    been sufficiently dealt with, that might lead to a fruitful discussion.

    I do not have a "biggest beef." The whole concordist enterprise is hoaky. It
    only works in terms of generalizations. The minute a concordist gives details
    of time, place, etc, the "harmonization" crashes and burns if closely


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 04:19:29 EST